Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 06:41:34 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Government regulation always a bad thing?  (Read 9173 times)
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 16, 2011, 06:53:02 PM
 #41

Bollocks. This is a matter of cost and selling price. If the cost is low enough, you can make a profit selling at a slightly higher price.
Profit unjustifiably increases the price, putting a home out of the reach of someone who needs it. Furthermore, the costs are sometimes zero, yet capitalists insist on taking whatever they can. Look at all these empty homes, just in the Hartford, CT area. Either nobody wants them, or some capitalists are preventing people from moving (back) in.

But Kiba, don't you know that all capitalists are profit blinded, short sighted, evil exploiters? Given the choice between improving the lives of others and profiting, or profiting more at the expense of others, they will always choose profiting more at the expense of others!
Only to the extent that they are capitalists. Some people are only partly capitalists, lending to friends without interest, doing favors, etc. For the sake of these people, I do not promote violent revolution. Their capitalist behavior sucks, however.


Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
If you see garbage posts (off-topic, trolling, spam, no point, etc.), use the "report to moderator" links. All reports are investigated, though you will rarely be contacted about your reports.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480963294
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480963294

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480963294
Reply with quote  #2

1480963294
Report to moderator
breandan81
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82


View Profile
March 16, 2011, 07:05:03 PM
 #42

It might be a bit late to make this post, but there are already a number of private and semiprivate organizations that provide non binding codes for various things.  W3C for web standards, Underwriters Laboratories for all kinds of stuff, in Germany TUV (with dots over the U sorry, on a US keyboard) started as a  private organization to make steam engines safer (though I'm not sure how it's run now), FAA doesn't regulate skydiving dropzones, but there are rules set up by the amateur organizations.   There is no reason to believe that buildings would be any different, it is almost certain the building codes did save some lives, since without coercion there would be less than 100% compliance with any code, but if I want to build a building that is going to fall down, and it won't damage the neighbors buildings when it does, I should have the right to do that.  Obviously telling tenants that it is up to some earthquake code, then knowingly constructing to lower standards would be fraud, and very few libertarians would say that is ok.  As for the more complex issue, of say, skyscrapers that cannot collapse without significant damage and loss of life on neighboring properties, I don't really see much way around regulation there. 

Electronics and components at http://avrthing.com
AllYourBase
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 138


View Profile
March 16, 2011, 07:57:28 PM
 #43

I don't know how likely this would be to happen.  If you read the anti-libertarian faq (see other thread), the author there makes an excellent point that while governments have set food safety and quality standards, restaurants do not have to obey them, and almost no restaurant has voluntarily adhered to any such a standard.

Perhaps that's because all of their customers decided these "food safety" standards are unnecessary, or at least not worth the extra cost.  Having traveled to Asia and eaten things the sight of which would make my grandmother keel over, I staunchly oppose the whole FDA racket, and eagerly seek out any restaurant that looks like it in some way might be skirting FDA regs. 
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
March 16, 2011, 08:16:57 PM
 #44

Profit unjustifiably increases the price, putting a home out of the reach of someone who needs it.

Unjustifiably? First, without the incentive for profit, most of the homes would not have been built. Second, how do you know that that person needs a house?

Quote
Furthermore, the costs are sometimes zero

What? How can the cost of a home be zero? Capital was expended creating the home, you expect it to just be given away?

Quote
Look at all these empty homes, just in the Hartford, CT area. Either nobody wants them, or some capitalists are preventing people from moving (back) in.

The capitalists aren't preventing people from moving in, the system of law is doing so.

Quote
Only to the extent that they are capitalists. Some people are only partly capitalists, lending to friends without interest, doing favors, etc. For the sake of these people, I do not promote violent revolution. Their capitalist behavior sucks, however.

What about the capitalists who profit by increasing the standard of living of others?

Capitalism is the private ownership of property. You have asserted that private ownership of property is exploitative, but not provided an argument why this is so. What is your moral basis for believing that every individual is entitled to the full potential value of their labor, rather than only what can be agreed upon with others?
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
March 16, 2011, 08:30:17 PM
 #45

Their actions suggest they are not at all worried about another earthquake destroying the buildings.  And if they won't follow government regulations, why the hell would they ever follow private regulations or the terms of a private contract?

They were contracted to do a job, which they are presumably doing according to the specifications provided by the buyer. If the builder is not building according to specifications, then he is in breach of contract, and the buyer should demand a refund.

If you're worried about being crushed by buildings, then you will ensure that you live and work in a safe building. Some office buildings still have asbestos, and some people avoid working there -- this is the same thing. Those willing to risk their lives in unsafe buildings will get more money in return.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2011, 09:08:44 AM
 #46

Japan is relatively wealthy, which is why you don't see so many building collapses.  People who have enough money to invest in a good home/building and who live in earthquake zones will obviously make sure it is earthquake-resistant.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2011, 02:52:01 AM
 #47

Unjustifiably?
Yes. No one should ever take the product of the labor of someone else without paying them fairly for it.

Quote
First, without the incentive for profit, most of the homes would not have been built.
That is also a problem as in the case of urban sprawl.

Quote
Second, how do you know that that person needs a house?
If he builds one, occupies an abandoned one, or exchanges the surplus of that which he produced, directly or indirectly, for one, presumably he needs one.

Quote
What? How can the cost of a home be zero? Capital was expended creating the home, you expect it to just be given away?
There's no cost to occupy an abandoned home, except that which a landlord might impose.

Quote
The capitalists aren't preventing people from moving in, the system of law is doing so.
The capitalist bank owners removed the homes' inhabitants because they couldn't collect enough interest. The government provides eviction services, or the threat of eviction, thereby helping capitalists profit. Capitalists profit by government. If they decide that they aren't making enough profit, the capitalists will overthrow it and make a more profitable one.

Quote
What about the capitalists who profit by increasing the standard of living of others?
Capitalism deprives most people of the product of their labor. When the worker's, renter's, or borrower's standard of living increases, it's either incidental or the result of capitalists attempting to prevent mutiny. In either case, they typically experience a net loss in the long run.

Quote
Capitalism is the private ownership of property. You have asserted that private ownership of property is exploitative, but not provided an argument why this is so. What is your moral basis for believing that every individual is entitled to the full potential value of their labor, rather than only what can be agreed upon with others?
Private property ownership isn't inherently exploitive. Charging people to use property for which you have no use without transferring ownership means that you gain at their expense. Therefore, you have taken advantage of them and their lack of property or the means to avoid the kind of extortion in which you engage. Taking advantage is the dictionary definition of exploitation. It's wrong to exploit people because in doing so, you disrespect their humanity. People are not livestock. Now, if the person your dealing with knows that he's on the loosing end of the deal but enjoys it, he's either doing you a favor or playing out a fetish.

If you're worried about being crushed by buildings, then you will ensure that you live and work in a safe building. Some office buildings still have asbestos, and some people avoid working there -- this is the same thing. Those willing to risk their lives in unsafe buildings will get more money in return.
What a miserable choice.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 03:13:25 AM
 #48

What a miserable choice.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2011, 03:29:21 AM
 #49

There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Exactly.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
Anonymous
Guest

March 18, 2011, 12:13:47 PM
 #50

What a miserable choice.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Just today I had an apple off the neighbours  tree for lunch. It didnt cost me anything.  Cheesy
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2011, 02:41:41 PM
 #51

Just today I had an apple off the neighbours  tree for lunch. It didnt cost me anything.  Cheesy
Well, it costs you some labor in the action of picking the apple. Under capitalism, your neighbor can claim any size portion of that apple even if he has already collected enough apples from the tree to compensate for any work he has put into the tree. The only reason he can get away with that is if he has the power to enforce his rules. Government gives him that power and is therefore profitable. As such, if your neighbor is a capitalist, he will create government in its absence.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 02:45:05 PM
 #52

There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Exactly.

And thus, you may have to choose between an expensive earthquake-proof building and building that are cheap but unsafe.

FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2011, 03:04:02 PM
 #53

And thus, you may have to choose between an expensive earthquake-proof building and building that are cheap but unsafe.
Two points: One, workers pay for their lunch as well as that of the governing capitalists. Two, the safety of the building one works in does not affect the quality and amount of work that one does, so the amount which one earns should not differ depending on the safety of the building.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
March 18, 2011, 03:18:20 PM
 #54

so the amount which one earns should not differ

You seem very comfortable dictating what other people should and should not do when engaging in voluntary interactions. I think that's why socialists sound so much like statists to me.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 03:35:43 PM
 #55

Two, the safety of the building one works in does not affect the quality and amount of work that one does, so the amount which one earns should not differ depending on the safety of the building.

Wrong, it's governed by the law of supply and demand.

Quality and amount of work one does is a factor, but is not the sole factor. Increased Workplace safety may impede profitability of a corporation and their ability to pay their workers.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 03:39:55 PM
 #56

You seem very comfortable dictating what other people should and should not do when engaging in voluntary interactions. I think that's why socialists sound so much like statists to me.

He doesn't understood my angry outbrust last time and I doubt he will understand now.

He is also living in a community where profit is valued, not something that is evil. Hence the bewilderment of members here.

FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2011, 04:55:14 PM
 #57

You seem very comfortable dictating what other people should and should not do when engaging in voluntary interactions. I think that's why socialists sound so much like statists to me.
I am merely informing, not dictating. I impose no consequence on you for not listening. Although, if I held a position of power over you, like that of an employer, we'd have a different situation.

Wrong, it's governed by the law of supply and demand.

Quality and amount of work one does is a factor, but is not the sole factor. Increased Workplace safety may impede profitability of a corporation and their ability to pay their workers.
Why should the price of a building affect the value of the product of one's labor within that building?

He doesn't understood my angry outbrust last time and I doubt he will understand now.

He is also living in a community where profit is valued, not something that is evil. Hence the bewilderment of members here.
I still don't. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 05:11:21 PM
 #58

Why should the price of a building affect the value of the product of one's labor within that building?
Actually, it's the worker who is in the position to neogitate as it is related to workplace condition. This is not related to worker competition but employer competition.

Worker: Why should I work in this cheap-o building instead of working in that safe building?

Employer: I pay twice as much wage as that other guy over there.

Worker: Hmm, I think I walk away...

Employer: No, don't go. I'll pay triple as much wage.

Worker: ok.

Quote
I still don't. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion.

We are unable to have a rational discussion because people here do not feel exploited when somebody profit off of them. Nobody feel ashamed and nobody cares.

If you don't simply feel exploited even though you fully understand the situation, well..what ya going to do?

JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 05:25:40 PM
 #59

What if I build an unsafe house that impacts those around it. Let's say that my house is prone to fires, and that will destroy/damage every house around it. Isn't it resaonable to have regulations in place to prevent damage to other peoples property?

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 05:28:14 PM
 #60

What if I build an unsafe house that impacts those around it. Let's say that my house is prone to fires, and that will destroy/damage every house around it. Isn't it resaonable to have regulations in place to prevent damage to other peoples property?

Nobody is proposing the idea of no regulation.

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!